Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2018 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1686 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURTMaintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - Jurisdiction - Benami transaction - Concessional rate of tax - C Form - intra-state sales - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the impugned order that the 1st respondent has exercised a jurisdiction not vested to him in law, both in terms of territorial limits and also in terms of the failure to give credit to the tax paid. Hence, this is a fit case where the Court would exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court had its own doubts about the necessity for the petitioner to be in possession of signed and unsigned cheque leaves, lorry receipts, way bills, rubber stamps of several companies etc. Therefore, in view of the large tax implication, this Court passed a conditional order on 01-5-2018 granting interim stay on condition that the petitioner paid ₹ 50 lakhs on or before 31-5-2018. Such a condition was imposed to check the bona fides of the petitioner. The petitioner has complied with the conditional order. As a matter of fact, if the petitioner had been driven to the alternative remedy of appeal, he would have been called upon to pay 12.5% of the disputed tax - the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy has to be rejected. The only argument repeated in several places in the impugned order as well as in the counter affidavit is that the registered dealers in other States were non-existent persons and that they were only benamies for the petitioner. But the orders of assessment in respect of those persons are not claimed by the 1st respondent to be bogus or fabricated. Therefore, we fail to understand as to why a person would suffer an order of assessment and also pay Central Sales Tax in fictitious names or in benami names without a corresponding benefit. What that corresponding benefit was, could not be articulated by the respondents. The fact that the 1st respondent has exercised extra territorial jurisdiction even in respect of the dealers in the State of Telangana, despite the bifurcation, is very clear from the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter remanded back for a fresh consideration. The matter remanded back to the 1st respondent for a fresh disposal in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.
|